🚀 go-pugleaf

On Aug 1, 11:00 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 1, 10:32 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 1, 10:02 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 1, 4:10 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 1, 6:00 am, Loui...@edu.herlufsholm.dk wrote:
>
> > > > > On 1 Aug., 06:14, Mitch Raemsch <mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > Electron is fundamental point particle.
>
> > > > > Real electrons are NOT ‘point-particles’ if the word ‘point’ has the
> > > > > same meaning as in the pure mathematics.
> > > > > It is only in the, maybe wrong, mathematical model of ‘fundamental’
> > > > > particles that it is assumed that electrons are ‘point-particles’.
>
> > > > > If electrons are real matter-/energy ‘particles’ then they MUST have
> > > > > some, maybe oscillating, mean geometrical extension!
>
> > > > That's simply incorrect. You are making a fundamental assumption that
> > > > everything that has mass also has volume. You are simply making an
> > > > extrapolation to an absolute status of a statement that is only known
> > > > to be true of *composite* materials, as I explained in an earlier post
> > > > in this thread. And for composite materials, the property of volume is
> > > > *not* associated with mass; it is associated with the *interactions*
> > > > between the constituents.
>
> > > ---------------------
> > > it is very nice that you are blubbing  (impressive  (:-)
>
> > >  words !!
>
> > > so
> > > if it is 'interaction between the constituents'
>
> > > may be tell us please - what are those 'constituents'  ??
>
> > The constituents in an ionic crystal are the ions. The volume of the
> > crystal lattice unit is not driven by the size of the ions.
>
> > The constituents of an atom are the nucleus and the electrons. The
> > volume of the atom is not driven by the size of the electron or the
> > size of the nucleus.
>
> -----------------------------------
>
> thtats nice
> but wasnot my question
>
> we are dealing    now  with the ELECTRON
> anmd the question about
> is it a point particle or not ??!!
>

We don't know. I already told you that.
We have no evidence that it has any constituents. We don't have any
proof that it has no constituents.
But what I've just said is that you cannot decide that question on the
basis of whether it has mass. Mass does not imply volume. Therefore
you cannot use the fact that it has mass to conclude that it has
volume and therefore structure and therefore constituents.
It *may* have volume, and it *may* have constituents, but you don't
KNOW that just because it has mass.

Now, what you can do is to take all the particles we don't have any
evidence one way or the other about structure: electrons, muons, taus,
neutrinos, quarks --- and *suppose* they have structure, and then ask
what implications would follow from that. For that to be a useful
exercise, the supposition should allow you to *calculate* some
properties of these particles -- their masses, for example, or their
decay rates into each other. Until you can do that kind of
calculation, the supposition is just that -- idle and useless
supposition. A physical theory does more than suppose.

PD